OUR VIEW: Justice meets politics

In an ideal world, justice would always trump political considerations. Unfortunately, when those interests collided recently in what District Attorney Sam Sutter considers a “politically charged” case involving the alleged misuse of public resources by an elected Westport official, Sutter seems to have deferre...

The Herald News, Fall River, MA

Writer

Posted Aug. 6, 2011 at 12:01 AM
Updated Aug 6, 2011 at 6:22 AM

Posted Aug. 6, 2011 at 12:01 AM
Updated Aug 6, 2011 at 6:22 AM

» Social News

In an ideal world, justice would always trump political considerations. Unfortunately, when those interests collided recently in what District Attorney Sam Sutter considers a “politically charged” case involving the alleged misuse of public resources by an elected Westport official, Sutter seems to have deferred to his political calculus.

An investigation by State Inspector General Gregory Sullivan of Westport Highway Surveyor Harold “Jack” Sisson and the Westport Highway Department resulted in serious allegations: Among other issues, the June report found Sisson awarded contracts for maintenance work on town vehicles without following the bidding process, gave thousands of dollars worth of stone, gravel, granite and cold patch from road projects to a local contractor and ordered Highway Department crews to perform work on private land during the course of more than two weeks.

Sullivan’s report concluded that Sisson’s “explanation of the rationale supporting those decisions and his denials of misconduct raise serious questions about his honesty and integrity as an elected public official.” Sullivan advised selectmen to forward the report to the District Attorney’s Office and the state ethics commission “for whatever action they may deem appropriate.”

Yet the District Attorney’s Office declined to investigate the case, citing a lack of resources and a desire to avoid setting a precedent in using limited prosecutorial resources to investigate sticky political cases involving elected officials. Sutter firmly believes that such matters are under the purview of either the Attorney General’s Public Corruption Unit or local police. However, by refusing to investigate allegations of wrongdoing involving Sisson — deeming it a local matter — Sutter has downplayed the gravity of the allegations and done a disservice to the interests of justice.

While failing to adhere to protocol on the bidding process may not be criminal, other allegations, such as giving material from road projects to private individuals, seem tantamount to theft. Directing work to be done on private property by Highway Department personnel is clearly unethical and may meet a criminal threshold.

The public has a right to know whether the allegations against Sisson are accurate and whether they are criminal. If they are, Sisson should be held legally liable. If he’s not, he has a right to have his name cleared. But by refusing to investigate, Sutter has clearly emboldened Sisson, who sees the DA’s lack of involvement as vindication: “Beautiful,” Sisson said. “I didn’t do anything wrong.”

By declining to diligently investigate the matter, Sutter has denied justice to both Sisson and his accusers, and the taxpayers of Westport. His reasoning for not taking up the case comes across as feckless.

“This is an era of limits on government resources. To get involved in this would really take a lot of our resources,” said Gregg Miliote, Sutter’s spokesman.

As the county’s chief prosecutor, the DA has a responsibility to find ways to make limited resources work toward the interest of justice. The DA’s office certainly has more resources to devote to the matter than does the Westport Police Department, to which the DA punted the case.

Page 2 of 2 -
But a potential conflict of interest could prevent Westport Police from

objectively investigating the matters of an elected town official and fellow town employees.

“If the Westport police find a probable cause to believe a crime was committed, we will prosecute,” Miliote told The Herald News. Already, however, the inspector general’s report lays out plenty of probable cause, which begs the question of what more the DA needs to proceed.

The people of Bristol County should expect more from their district attorney than political spin — using an era of small government and limited resources as a reason not to investigate potential criminal charges. As a result of the DA’s inaction, the matter may never be settled, sending a message to other public officials and the public at large that abuse of power is “small potatoes” — not serious enough to spend prosecutorial resources investigating.